22 Aug 2017
Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed ground (non-compliance with s 78F) lacked sufficient merit given there was no settlement (so the statutory occasion for the statement did not arise) and because the issue is interlocutory and appropriately resolved in the substantive proceedings; accordingly there was no basis to grant expedited Supreme Court review.
16 Mar 2015
The Court held the appellant was not an agent of the overseas operators but, in its own right, entered into separate contracts with local suppliers and with overseas operators and supplied advisory and on‑the‑ground services that together packaged domestic tourism products sold to non‑residents; those advisory services therefore constituted facilitation of inbound tour operations under s 8(2B)/(2F) and were chargeable to GST, so the appeal is dismissed.
21 Oct 2011
The Court held the transaction was a sale of shares, not a supply of a going concern: the legal rights and obligations arose from the share transfer and company constitution (including surrender of the lease), there was no evidence that chattels/partitions/tenancies were assigned or had value attributable to the sale, and Marac and Gulf Harbour require characterisation by the legal arrangements actually entered into, so s 11(1)(m) did not apply.
24 Jul 2009
The Variation Agreement unambiguously required settlement with vacant possession, so there was no clear and unequivocal written agreement that the supply was of a going concern as required by s 11(1)(m)(i); therefore the transaction was not zero-rated and GST at 12.5% applied. Section 109 TAA did not bar the Court from determining this contractual GST issue between parties.